Strasbourg Observers

View posts from: By Topic

  • Lourdes Peroni

Family Reunification in Berisha v. Switzerland: The Child’s Best Interests, Really?

August 01, 2013

This week, in a divided ruling, the Court rejected the case of Berisha v. Switzerland. By four votes to three, the Court held that the refusal of residence permits to the applicants’ three children – who were born in Kosovo and entered Switzerland illegally – did not violate the parents’ right to respect for family […]

  • Guest Blogger

UN immunity overrides ius cogens norms of international law

July 23, 2013

This guest post was written by Bella Murati, Ph.D. Candidate at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University.   July 2013 marks the 18th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, when in the period of 13-19 July 1995, more than 8,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims were deliberately killed by Bosnian Serb forces. The case itself has been […]

  • Laurens Lavrysen

Transforming the right to property

July 17, 2013

Reading Strasbourg case-law on a systematic basis, I always feel uncomfortable when I see the Court’s expansive protection in the field of Article 1 Protocol 1. Basically, that is because I don’t really like the idea of a human right to property for a number of reasons. Firstly, a right to property takes the present […]

  • Guest Blogger

Article 10 of the Convention includes the right of access to data held by an intelligence agency

July 08, 2013

This post is written by Dirk Voorhoof, Ghent University.* In its judgment of 25 June 2013 in the case of Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia the European Court of Human Rights has recognised more explicitly than ever before the right of access to documents held by public authorities, based on Article 10 of […]

  • Maris Burbergs

Crossing the red line: application of the ‘significant disadvantage’ criterion in an Article 5§3 case

July 04, 2013

Recently, Judges De Gaetano and Ziemele did not hide their bewilderment with the Latvian government’s argument in favor of the application of the ‘significant disadvantage’ admissibility criterion in the case of Bannikov v. Latvia.

  • Guest Blogger

Gross v Switzerland: the Swiss regulation of assisted suicide infringes Article 8 ECHR

June 26, 2013

This guest post was written by Daria Sartori, Ph.D candidate in Criminal Law at Trento University (Italy). She is interested in the relationship between Criminal Law and Human Rights, and she is presently working in Italy and abroad on a research project about the Principle of Legality and the European Convention on Human Rights. Gross […]

  • Weichie

Manifestly ill-founded … by a majority

June 17, 2013

In this post I want to flag three inadmissibility decisions, delivered by the Court’s Chambers over the past few months, in which the applicant’s claims are declared manifestly ill-founded, by a majority. Like so many inadmissibility decisions, the three summarised below may have easily passed under the radar of many of our readers. These particular […]

  • Guest Blogger

N.K.M. v. Hungary: Heavy Tax Burden Makes Strasbourg Step In

June 10, 2013

This guest post was written by Ingrid Leijten, Ph.D. researcher and teaching assistant at the Leiden University Faculty of Law, Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law. The debate on the future of the European Court of Human Rights is often phrased in terms of the individual justice/constitutional justice dichotomy. In the recent case of N.K.M. […]

  • Laurens Lavrysen

The Court could provide more guidance in prisoner cases

May 30, 2013

When systematically reading the Court’s case-law, it becomes clear that poor conditions of detention remain one of the most dramatic human rights problems in contemporary Europe. The last decade, the Court has done a good job in interpreting Article 3 ECHR as to include a right for prisoners to be held in decent detention conditions. […]

  • Saïla Ouald Chaib

Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey: The Court could have shown more empathy

May 24, 2013

Fellow observers of the Strasbourg case law will probably agree with me: when you systematically go through the Court’s case law you’re confronted with the most extraordinary facts that you would never have imagined. Horrible prison circumstances, ill-treatment and torture are sometimes described into utmost details. One can also not remain untouched by cases concerning […]

  • Saïla Ouald Chaib

New Publication: “Doing Minority Justice Through Procedural Fairness: Face Veil Bans in Europe”

May 15, 2013

Eva Brems and I are happy to announce the publication of our article entitled “Doing Minority Justice Through Procedural Fairness: Face Veil Bans in Europe” in the Journal of Muslims in Europe. In this article we examine the bans on face veils (better known as ‘Burqa bans’) from a procedural justice perspective. This piece also […]

  • Weichie

ECtHR Really Applies Less Restrictive Alternative: Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg

May 01, 2013

The structured proportionality test, as utilised by the German Constitutional Court (among others) and championed by Robert Alexy and his followers, subjects limitations of fundamental rights to a three-pronged test. The test is intended to examine – step by step – a measure’s (i) suitability, (ii) necessity and (iii) proportionality stricto sensu. Correct application of […]

  • Guest Blogger

Ban on Political Advertising Does Not Violate Article 10: Animal Defenders International v. UK

April 24, 2013

This guest post was written by Ronan Ó Fathaigh* On Monday, the Grand Chamber of the European Court held, by nine votes to eight, that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television did not violate Article 10. The majority opinion in Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom departed substantially from the Court’s previous […]

  • Guest Blogger

Equal treatment for remand and convicted prisoners: Gülay Çetin v. Turkey

April 09, 2013

This guest post was written by Cedric De Koker, academic assistant at the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Ghent University. With its judgment in the case of Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)  added another chapter to its significant body of detention-related case law. Having to pronounce […]

  • Laurens Lavrysen

Söderman v. Sweden: third party intervention of our Human Rights Centre

April 04, 2013

We were in Strasbourg yesterday to attend the Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Söderman v. Sweden. In this case, formerly known as E.S. v. Sweden, the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University  has submitted a third party intervention. We expect the Grand Chamber judgment to become the leading case on positive obligations under […]

  • Lourdes Peroni

Forthcoming Publication on Vulnerable Groups in the Court’s Case Law

March 18, 2013

This post was written by Alexandra Timmer and Lourdes Peroni Alexandra and I are happy to announce the forthcoming publication of our joint Article “Vulnerable Groups: The Promise of an Emerging Concept in European Human Rights Convention Law.” The piece will be published in the International Journal of Constitutional Law – I•CON. In this Article, […]

  • Weichie

X. and Others v. Austria (Part II): A Narrow Ruling on a Narrow Issue

March 06, 2013

In this second post on the Grand Chamber judgment in X. and Others v. Austria, I will focus on the narrowness of it all: the narrowness of the issue before the Court, the narrowness of the ruling and the narrow approach the majority took to the European consensus. Although I believe the majority should be […]

  • Guest Blogger

X. and Others v. Austria (Part I): Had the Woman Been a Man…

March 04, 2013

This guest post – the first in a two-post series on X. and Others v. Austria – was written by Grégor Puppinck* On the 19th of February, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights published its ruling in the case of X and others v. Austria (no. 19010/07), which decided by ten […]

  • Lourdes Peroni

“Very Weighty Reasons” for Religion: Vojnity v. Hungary

February 27, 2013

It looks like freedom-of-religion season has arrived in Strasbourg. After leaving aside the “freedom to resign” doctrine in Eweida, the Court has just made another move towards greater recognition of the importance of freedom of religion. In Vojnity v. Hungary, the Court clearly recognizes religion as a “suspect” ground of differentiation. As a result – […]

  • Guest Blogger

Non-nationals, living conditions and disability: Situating S.H.H. v. United Kingdom within Strasbourg’s Article 3 case-law

February 19, 2013

This guest post was written by Elaine Webster. Elaine holds a PhD from the University of Edinburgh and is currently a lecturer and director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights Law at the University of Strathclyde.  In S.H.H. v. United Kingdom a chamber of the ECtHR, by four votes to three, found […]

1 32 33 34 35 36 45